TheCatSite.com › Forums › General Forums › IMO: In My Opinion › Back by popular demand: habeas corpus!
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Back by popular demand: habeas corpus! - Page 2

post #31 of 46
6/15/08 at 3:19pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by ckblv View Post
I heard on the news about one of these gitmo detainees being released, he promptly went to Iraq and became a suicide bomber and blew up a bunch of people. .
You totally discount the possibility that it was his experiences at Guantanamo that instilled such a hatred of the U.S. that it was during his stay there he decided he would become a suicide bomber?
Reply
post #32 of 46
6/15/08 at 4:08pm
I'm sure that was the case Coaster. What else could it be? He couldn't possibly be one of the bad guys.


Momofmany, there were hundreds of links within links, I admit I didn't open them all.

FTR, I don't condone torture. I don't consider loud rap music torture but on reading one of the FBI internal memo's it sounded bad.
Reply
post #33 of 46
6/15/08 at 8:35pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by ckblv View Post
And who made, "Seton Hall University researchers" experts on Gitmo.
I heard on the news about one of these gitmo detainees being released, he promptly went to Iraq and became a suicide bomber and blew up a bunch of people. It is disgusting we are giving these monsters our constitutional rights.

Link please?

Why don't we just let them all go and let them go back to what they were doing? Hey, but for all the "Hate Bush no matter what" people I'm sure it is a victory. Wait until they are on OUR soil blowing themselves and innocent American civilians up, people will think differently then, I'm sure. It will happen, get ready.
Guantanamo Bay is one of the reasons I have for not liking Bush. I wouldn't go so far as to say I fanatically hate Bush.

Karl Rove"s methods of political debate are still going strong here: Lie lie lie and attack the messenger.

This court wasd fine with all the Bush fans when they decided that Florida couldn"t recount their votes in 2000.
Reply
post #34 of 46
6/15/08 at 9:20pm
Found it!

I knew when ckblv mentioned this that I'd seen the story before, it just took me a little while to find it, sorry.

Ex-detainees returning to fight
Reply
post #35 of 46
6/15/08 at 9:39pm
That's why we have to allow justice to run its course. Guantanamo Bay smells like Guano Bay in the world's nostrils. If we try these "unlawful combatants" with solid evidence, whether it be civilian or military court, convict and incarcerate the guilty, and free the innocent, then we can be done with this whole mess. Keep the bad guys "off the street" and let the good guys go home. We can't keep the whole neigborhood locked up because a few punks from there robbed the corner liquor store.
Reply
post #36 of 46
6/15/08 at 11:31pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Skippymjp View Post
Found it!

I knew when ckblv mentioned this that I'd seen the story before, it just took me a little while to find it, sorry.

Ex-detainees returning to fight
I apologize Cindy. I suspected this might be an internet rumor, I was most definitely wrong. It looks like military has been deciding who to detain and release. They seem to have made some mistakes.

Quote:
Originally Posted by coaster View Post
That's why we have to allow justice to run its course. Guantanamo Bay smells like Guano Bay in the world's nostrils. If we try these "unlawful combatants" with solid evidence, whether it be civilian or military court, convict and incarcerate the guilty, and free the innocent, then we can be done with this whole mess. Keep the bad guys "off the street" and let the good guys go home. We can't keep the whole neigborhood locked up because a few punks from there robbed the corner liquor store.
Now, this is what I was confused about. I thought that habeus corpus meant that the detainees would get their day in court. Many of the posts seem to indicate that they will be released. This isn't a rhetorical question -- habeus corpus just means a hearing to decide if there's enough evidence to hold them, right?

ETA:

http://usgovinfo.about.com/od/rights...beuscorpus.htm

I think I must be getting dumber because the legality of this issue remains very murky to me. This is a short article about habeus corpus and both Lincoln and Bush's (and Congress') use of it. It doesn't guarantee the release of any Guantanamo Bay detainee. If I can understand it at all it gives them the right to challenge that they are being held. If the governement can show good reason I guess it can continue to hold them (for how long? I'm still confused), if not they must be released. If anyone understands it better please help me.
Reply
post #37 of 46
6/16/08 at 4:23am
Quote:
Originally Posted by KTLynn View Post
To whom is the comment insulting? In effect, this is what has happened by the court's disregard of the Constitution as well as its own earlier decision in Eisentrager. *I'm* insulted by the decision to give terrorists the same rights I'm entitled to as a US citizen.

Checks and balances are great when they're actually working. The Court has made many poor decisions and run roughshod over the other two branches.

Bush Derangement Syndrome refers to the deep hatred many liberals have toward the President. The hatred is such that as long as something, in this case the latest Supreme Court decision, is perceived to hurt the President, it's all good no matter what the ramifications may be to others.

I agree that "murderers and pedophiles" deserve their day in court as long as they are US citizens. If they aren't and they are not on US soil, our system does not pertain to them - as in the case of Gitmo detainees.

(Sorry for the monster post -this subject gets under my skin just a little...)
Personally I think the executive branch has done more roughshodding over the legislative and judicial branches. I don't believe in the Bush Derangement Syndrome but I think there is a movement for change that will resind some decisions of the Bush administration that many American do not believe in. Maybe conservatives are being a little dismissive. Maybe some changes are for reasons other than dislike of the current President and his administration.
As for our courts and protections only being for US citizens that is a dangerous attitute to take. It leaves our citizens abroad in a very pecarious position if it were to come to fruition. If all countries took this attitude there would be no protection legally. This link sums up my view on this. http://www.yaledailynews.com/articles/view/2793 That view also smacks of being kinda Xenophobic to me.

There has to be a middle ground for dealing with the Gitmo detainees. They should have some kind of hearing.

I wouldn't apologize for your long post. You are entitled to have your opinion heard. I like seeing how other people think even if I don't agree with their position.
Reply
post #38 of 46
6/16/08 at 6:36am
Quote:
Originally Posted by katie=^..^= View Post
Now, this is what I was confused about. I thought that habeus corpus meant that the detainees would get their day in court. Many of the posts seem to indicate that they will be released. This isn't a rhetorical question -- habeus corpus just means a hearing to decide if there's enough evidence to hold them, right?
That's it, essentially. The government has to show cause that they're being held. Basically, it's a case of due legal process. Are non-citizens being held outside the territory of the U.S. entitled to due legal process? The Supreme Court says that at least they're entitled to habeus corpus. It's got nothing to do with release directly, except that if the government can't show cause, then they can't legally be held.
Reply
post #39 of 46
6/16/08 at 7:23am
Thank you Skippy, I wouldn't have been able to find the link as I heard it on TV and couldn't remember where I heard it except it was on Fox and I know many don't believe anything coming from Fox.

It's okay Katie, I knew that "I heard" comment without a link wasn't cool.
Reply
post #40 of 46
6/16/08 at 7:27pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by ckblv View Post
Thank you Skippy, I wouldn't have been able to find the link as I heard it on TV and couldn't remember where I heard it except it was on Fox and I know many don't believe anything coming from Fox.

It's okay Katie, I knew that "I heard" comment without a link wasn't cool.
You are quite welcome. I'm not a huge fan of Fox myself, but I DO watch it on the weekends, because Julie Banderas is there, and I don't really listen too closely to what she says, I just watch....
Reply
post #41 of 46
6/16/08 at 10:08pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by coaster View Post
That's it, essentially. The government has to show cause that they're being held. Basically, it's a case of due legal process. Are non-citizens being held outside the territory of the U.S. entitled to due legal process? The Supreme Court says that at least they're entitled to habeus corpus. It's got nothing to do with release directly, except that if the government can't show cause, then they can't legally be held.
Thanks. I have to struggle to wrap my mind around legal concepts. I never feel like I really understand them. It amazes me that the courts so often manage to make the same decision I would have made just using common sense.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080617/...nees_treatment

Most of you have probably already seen this on Fox, but I don't get Fox.
Reply
post #42 of 46
6/17/08 at 6:18am
The law was originally intended to codify common sense, but I think it got derailed somewhere along the way by laywers.
Reply
post #43 of 46
6/17/08 at 10:44am
Quote:
Originally Posted by katie=^..^= View Post
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080617/...nees_treatment

Most of you have probably already seen this on Fox, but I don't get Fox.
The Washington Post has more details: Report Questions Pentagon Accounts This has really been a black chapter in U.S. history.
Reply
post #44 of 46
7/12/08 at 3:15am
About the whole habeas corpus thing,

they keep calling them unlawful combatant, which is just another name for a mercenary.

in this case they are not being promised money, but 72 vrigin, still means they are fighting for payment.

now if we look Geneva Conventions, what it says.
mercenary soldier becomes an unlawful combatant, but still must be "treated with humanity and, in case of trial, shall not be deprived of the rights of fair and regular trial"

now wait here is the good part.

If after a regular trial, the captured soldier is found to be a mercenary/unlawful combatant, then he can expect treatment as a common criminal and face execution. As unlawful combatant are not PoWs, they cannot expect repatriation at war's end.

lol and all of it is within the Geneva Conventions

so may not be a bad idea.
i got some shot rope we could use.
Reply
post #45 of 46
7/12/08 at 9:25am
About the "Geneva Convention" -- it takes two sides to make it work, and the people we're fighting today not only never signed the agreement, being people that don't represent a sovereign nation they couldn't sign the agreement if they wanted to. If the other side doesn't abide by it, then we have no obligation to abide by it, either.

I think the Geneva Convention pretty much went out the window after the end of World War II.
Reply
post #46 of 46
7/12/08 at 6:24pm
lol true that.
but still it gives the US the right to hang them by the neck until dead, or to just toss them in some nice dark hole and never let them out..

unless they can find some nice american hating judge here
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: IMO: In My Opinion
TheCatSite.com › Forums › General Forums › IMO: In My Opinion › Back by popular demand: habeas corpus!